Discovery in trade secrets cases: contention interrogatories

Moving to compel on interrogatories is tough. You never know what a judge’s take is gonna be. So you need all the data points you can get.

Attia v. Google provides one such data point.  

Attia is an architect. The gist of its trade secret claim is that Attia provided Google with breakthough tech in designing large structures, and Google coopted it into its company (Flux Factory).

Google served two interrogatories relevant here: one asking Attia to identify each alleged use of trade secrets by each defendant, the other asking for each alleged disclosure by each defendant.

In response, Attia provided a 16-page response detailing Attia’s relationship with Google and how Google wronged them. The response described the numerous promises Google made and Google’s trickery.

Basically, it was a jury argument. It “only incidentally and very slightly” addressed what the interrogatories sought.

Yet the court still found it sufficient as to Google. (Add that to your data points on what Magistrate Judge Lloyd from the Northern District of California finds acceptable for interrogatory responses.)

But. Google was not the only defendant. Attia also sued Flux, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and six other Googlers (current or former). As to these defendants, the interrogatory responses were not good enough. These defendants were almost entirely absent from Attia's narrative responses, besides from generic claims that all defendants were co-conspirators.

So the court ordered Attia to provide a supplemental response for each defendant separately, detailing “each and every instance by date, place, and circumstances” where the defendant wrongfully used or disclosed a trade secret.